Why I am creationist

Some definitions which may help:

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

​

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

​

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Isn't it odd that the only folks who claim science is a religion are fundamentalist Christians?The rest of the world, including a billion or more non-fundamentalist Christians recognize science for what it is--a method for learning about the natural world.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You make my point; the only folks who claim that science is a religion are fundamentalists.And I don't need you or any other fundamentalists to tell me what evolution is. I studied it at the graduate level, with an emphasis on fossil man, right up to my Ph.D. exams.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You want proof that evolution isn't a religion?In six years of graduate school, and many classes in those related fields:

--Not once was I asked to take something on faith;

​

--Not once was it suggested we worship or idolize Darwin, Leakey or any other previous figure in the field;

​

--Not once was a supernatural explanation offered for something not yet understood;

​

--Not once was the theory of evolution claimed to be a solution to the ultimate problems of human life; and

​

--Not once did anyone pass the collection plate.

Pretty much misses out on all the standard definitions of religion, now doesn't it?My question to you: why do fundamentalists have to lie about science? Are they that afraid of finding out what happened in the real world that they have to lie and distort what science finds, and even worse--what science really is?Sounds pretty insecure to me.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, your real objection is that I don't kowtow to your particular version of religion.I don't have to: The Enlightenment happened.The Dark Ages are over. You can't even send the Inquisition after me any longer, and burning at the stake is so last millennium, so pass. Better get used to it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

From Wiki:

When the institutions of the church felt themselves threatened by what they perceived as the heresy, and then schism of the Protestant Reformation, they reacted. Paul III (Pope from 1534 to 1549) established a system of tribunals, administered by the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition", and staffed by cardinals and other Church officials. This system would later become known as the Roman Inquisition.

​

In 1908 Saint Pope Pius X renamed the organisation: it became the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office". This in its turn became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[7] in 1965, which name continues to this day.

Inquisition - Wikipedia

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.